[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 09:47:44 UTC 2016
2016-06-24 11:20 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>:
> In OSM there has always been "space" to add new detail. What one person
> finds a ridiculous level of micro-mapping, someone else may consider
> valuable data. For example, I as a cyclist am not bothered about
> maxheight=* but truck drivers are. In the past there has been no clear
> process evident for deciding where to draw the line. If someone wants to
> create a navigation model for learner drivers, then why not? Who are we to
> say "that doesn't belong in OSM"? Where are the rules for that? Our job as
> a community is to guide the development of the tagging so that it is fit
> for purpose (now and looking into the future) and compatible with what is
> already there.
is this a confirmation that there are no individual signs and that this is
a general rule applying to all motorways?
The problem I see with adding tags like this (presumed that the previous
sentence is correct) is that they tend to obfuscate the "important" tags,
because when you start to add to every road and park and forest "carrying
firearms not allowed unless you have a specific license" and thousands of
tags for all other generic rules of law in your country, the list of tags
becomes _very_ long. I've already encountered roads without a highway tag,
but with long lists of foot=yes, bicycle=yes, vehicle=yes,
motor_vehicle=yes, hgv=yes, psv=yes, ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging